Reading The Pictures: Craig, Wingnuts Quack Like A Duck -- For A Change
Surely, you're familiar with that power-tripping phrase: "Are you going to believe me, or your own eyes?"
This Administration has consistently avoided judgement by defying expected norms of reaction and standard emotional cause-and-effect.
... What that means is, if a guy does wrong and that wrong catches up to him, we are neurologically wired to expect a certain type of behavioral response. That reaction -- be it oral and tonal, or facial and gestural -- could be anything within a familiar spectrum, ranging from contrition or shame on one end to defensiveness or defiance on the other. The completely subversive thing about this Administration, however, is that, with as much damage as they've done, one would barely recognize it because the physical and emotional indicators the key players display bears so little sign of impertinence toward laws, ethics, and moral standards, or much hiccup, at all, at the level of personal conscience.
That's why it's such a relief to me to see Senator Craig in these mug shots.
Craig's expression, playing out below or just short of the camera eye, appears to say "I'm not here. ... And because I don't see you, I'm expecting (in my little bubble) you won't see me." In the profile, his gaze appears downward. Accordingly, we (as creatures each equipped with a set of emotional antennae) are trained to consider -- through instinctive, psychological pattern recognition -- a set vocabulary of corresponding emotions. Likely in the expressive mix -- and easier to recognize if you happened to listen to "Larry on tape" yesterday -- are qualities of shame, denial and rationalization.
Extreme narcissists, like sociopaths, however, just don't come with that kind of emotional programming. So while the world, based on their direct actions, could be on its way down in flames, what you are likely to see, even if judgement day is closing in on them, is a completely incongruous disconnect between the actor, his actions and his reactions.
Unfortunately for the country, the fact that you can get a mug like the one DeLay provided for his perp portrait, or ones like this or these, in the face of blatant wrongdoing and rampant abuse of power, sends a psychological signal, at a deep cognitive level, that nothing seems so wrong.
For more of the visual, visit BAGnewsNotes.com.
(image 1: Harris County Sheriff's Office/Handout/Reuters. October 20, 2005. Via YahooNews. image 2: Metropolitan Airports Commission Police Department/Handout/Reuters)
Follow Michael Shaw on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bagnewsnotes
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This is a pretty hefty analysis. I can break it down to one line: "I was picking up a piece of paper." That was Larry Craig's excuse for why his hand appeared to reach into the police officer's stall.
First, unless you're cleaning the stall, no one picks up a random piece of paper off the floor of a public restroom.
Second, if that piece of paper was his, he wouldn't refer to it as "a piece of paper". He would have called it by name: a receipt or memo or whatever it actually was. A piece of paper is what I carry in the office when I want to look like I'm working. A named document is what I carry when I'm actually working.
There may be many subtleties that reveal his dishonesty, but "I was picking up a piece of paper." is so blatantly made up. I would expect a much more convincing lie from a politician.
The only paper in a bathroom stall comes off the roll- and why would you even think of picking it up off the floor ...ewww. Yet people are missing the pre-game events as well- that of Craig peeking through the officer's stall door.
One unobtrusive peek to check for occupancy is one thing, not the peekaboo games Craig was reported to have done.
It was the "fiddly fingers" that gave him away..
those "homie" signs.
How did he KNOW them....mm
~Church Lady~
You got that right. He was talking about TP and there's NO WAY that happened. It amazes me that ANYONE believes his story. Nobody sticks their hands in the next stall either.
I think the photos show a guy that is so deep in denial that he's not even panicked about the fact that he has just reached the end of the road. He should have known it that very day.
then he identified the paper as "toilet paper". WHO in gods name picks up toilet paper from the floor of a public men's room? This subject (the senator) thinks he is smarter than the interviewing officer, and tries calmly but desperately to turn the tables on the interviewer. He is a liar who very well may have got away with something similar once or more prior to this arrest which built his confidence in lying and getting away with it.
All the time with his American Flag pin. Have the guts to remove the flag senator.
Libdude: I suspect you are a paid repug troll trying to hide behind your screen name. I checked your profile and you have all the symptoms of conservative who lies constantly to support indefensible positions, hoping that Americans who are struggling to make ends meet in their jobs, that have no security or benefits do not have the time to expose you and your ilk. You have been outed Libdude.
PUTNAM PUPPY PIDDLE ALERT!
http://www
They're so cute when they have that chewtoy in their mouth.
Agreed.
It appears that paid neo-con trolls are in abundance anymore, not only here but on many other high profile sites
One of their often used 'openers' goes something like this: "I dislike _______ as much as the next guy, but ... ", and then they passionately defend them (them = neo-republican, BushCo, the war, etc.)
Anyone daring to disagree with them is then systematically tarred and feathered.
I must say the signs are all there so I agree with you spud777.
Spud777 and DragonFly-- Outed!! But I'm not Gay!!
Seriously, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. How could you two read anything I've written on this site and come to the conclusion that I'm a conservative infiltrator?! Jesus, you guys have it bad! I'm guessing that you didn't appreciate my questioning Dr. Shaw's methods for determining one's guilt, innocence, level of shame, defiance, pride and probably potty-training techniques used by the parents, simply by gazing at a snapshot.
If you can determine guilt or innocence based on
facial expression, why not use skin color? Oops!
That's already being used. Well, how about nationality? Oops again! That's being used, also.
The point of my original comment was not to defend
Larry Craig's behavior per se, but simply to point out that in America, you can't convict someone by their appearance or attitude, but by the facts only. That someone "looks guilty" doesn't cut it in the country in which I was brought up. Dr. Shaw's character assessments based
on selected Kodak moments has the potential to
morph into a simplistic system of justice that
only a true conservative could love. You guys
sound like the neo-con infiltrators.
My apologies 'libdude'.
I should not have clumped you into the same group of people that I referrenced in my prior comment.
It is true that I have no historical viewpoint in which to make a judgment of that nature about you.
As a liberal, I can appreciate your point about not laying judgment on others with little more than how they look.
However, there appears to be a bit of weight on the side of 'highly suspicious behavior' regarding Mr. Craig; plus the neo-cons have set the stage for these sort of snap judgments.
So for that reason, (and oh so many others) I have little sympathy for them when they are caught with their pants down.
"The point of my original comment was not to defend Larry Craig's behavior per se".......
Are you saying, Dr. Shaw, that you can tell,
simply by the photos provided, that Larry Craig is detached from reality? Without knowing Craig or his history, you can determine, through these images made in a fraction of a second, that he's an extreme narcicist, or that he is genuinely unable to recognize or acknowledge his abusive, hypocritical nature? That's scary. How can you glean so much information from a photo of such a clean-cut guy in a suit? Would your critique of Mr.Craig's photographed countenance been the same last week, before he had been arrested for sexual impropriety?
Actually, the sense i get from this entry is that Craig is the first Repooplican caught doing a bad thing who is actually showing a congruent emotional response. That's not to say the mug shot is worthy of a full emotional psychoanalysis, but when you look at so many other of the GOP who have either faced a police mug camera or who consistently show their cheery everything-is-fine smiles in the face of such utter corruption and moral depravity on this president's watch, Craig's pseudo-contrition is a GOOD thing. He's the first member of the GOP caught in the middle of breaking the law who has expressed, even in this fraction of a second, any form of recognition of his transgression. Of course he's nullified it by trying to make the case that the media has hounded him into his legal troubles (implying that they are somehow responsible for his presence and impulse to troll men's rooms for sex).
Pay attention.
Dude, pay attention!
In the context of being arrested for lewd behavior.
He's in custody, not at a picnic.
Dude, you're not paying attention: What exactly is it that Senator Craig did wrong? He committed no crime, but was kinda stupid admitting to a conduct charge. Face it, all Craig did was flirt with another guy who led him on. Craig was entrapped and that's it, period. Homosexuality is not a crime, nor is flirting. Normally, we straights getting hit on by a gay would ;
(a) scatter, fast......
(b) bellow, "fuck off, asshole"..
(c) walk off wondering what the hell that was all about.....
The cop arrested Senator Craig for "intent" and that ain't a crime, either.
Funny, this was kept under wraps by the MSM for three months....
The fact that Craig is a Republican is evidence enough that he is detached from reality.
Wilbur
The blog post was not perfectly written (is any blog?) so libdude got lost.
First, Shaw says Larry Craig essentially looks embarrasse
This raises the second point, about narcissism and sociopaths. Those comments were not about Larry Craig, they are about those other guys like DeLay, who are smiling from ear to ear... totally inappropriate for the situation.
For more examples of mug shots of people showing “inappropriate” expressions (e.g., Paris Hilton’s mug shot as if she were at a fashion model photoshoot) see:
http://www
But most of these celebrities and public figures are NOT SMILING, just like Larry Craig. We're NOT talking about a plain photograph
Um, libdude, I don't think you read the article very carefully. The author is offering Craig's mugshot (a special type of photgraph) as an example of showing shame; DeLay's smiley-face mugshot is his example of dissonance. Also, referent to a later comment of yours, the author at no point suggests that he can tell "guilt or innocence" by looking at a photograph. As it happens, of course, Craig plead guilty, so we already know that.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
